Detailed information gain and therapeutic impact of whole body computed tomography supplementary to conventional radiological diagnostics in blunt trauma emergency treatment: a consecutive trauma centre evaluation

Diagnostic utility of whole-body computed tomography/pan-scan in trauma: a systematic review and meta-analysis study

Trauma is a significant cause of mortality and morbidity. It is crucial to diagnose trauma patients quickly to provide effective treatment interventions in such conditions. Whole-body computed tomography (WBCT)/pan-scan is an imaging technique that enables a faster and more efficient diagnosis for polytrauma patients. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the efficacy of WBCT in diagnosing injuries in polytrauma patients. We will also assess its impact on the mortality rate and length of hospital stay among trauma centers between patients who underwent WBCT and those who did not (non-WBCT). Twenty-seven studies meeting our inclusion criteria were selected among PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. The criteria were centered on the significance of WBCT/pan-scan application in trauma patients. Stata version 15 was used to perform statistical analysis on the data. The authors have also used I2 statistics to evaluate heterogeneity. Egger and Begg's tests were performed to rule out any publication bias. Total of twenty-seven studies including 68,838 trauma patients with a mean age of 45.0 ± 24.7 years were selected. Motor vehicle collisions were the most common cause of blunt injuries (80.0%). Head, neck, and face injuries were diagnosed in 44% (95% CI, 0.28-0.60; I2 = 99.8%), 6% (95% CI, 0.02-0.09; I2 = 97.2%), and 9% (95% CI, 0.05-0.13; I2 = 97.1%), respectively. Chest injuries were diagnosed by WBCT in 39% (95% CI, 0.28-0.51; I2 = 99.8%), abdominal injuries in 23% (95% CI, 0.03-0.43; I2 = 99.9%) of cases, spinal injuries 19% (95% CI, 0.11-0.27; I2 = 99.4%), extremity injuries 33% (95% CI, 0.23-0.43; I2 = 99.2%), and pelvic injuries 11% (95% CI, 0.04-0.18; I2 = 97.4%). A mortality odd ratio of 0.94 (95% CI, 0.83-1.06; I2 = 40.1%) was calculated while comparing WBCT and non-WBCT groups. This systematic review and meta-analysis provide insight into the possible safety, efficacy, and efficiency of WBCT/pan-scan as a diagnostic tool for trauma patients with serious injuries, regardless of their hemodynamic status. In patients with serious injuries from trauma, whether or not there are indicators of hemodynamic instability, our recommended approach is to, wherever possible, perform a WBCT without stopping the hemostatic resuscitation. By using this technology, the optimal surgical strategy for these patients can be decided upon without causing any delays in their final care or greatly raising their radiation dose.

The use of whole body computed tomography does not lead to increased 24-h mortality in severely injured patients in circulatory shock

The Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) approach is generally accepted as the standard of care for the initial management of severely injured patients. While whole body computed tomography (WBCT) is still considered a contraindication in haemodynamically unstable trauma patients, there is a growing amount of data indicating the absence of harm from cross sectional imaging in this patient group. Our study aimed to compare the early mortality of unstable trauma patients undergoing a WBCT during the initial workup with those who did not. Single-center retrospective observational study based on the local trauma registry including 3525 patients with an ISS > 15 from January 2008 to June 2020. We compared the 24-h mortality of injured patients in circulatory shock undergoing WBCT with a control group undergoing standard workup only. Inclusion criteria were the simultaneous presence of a systolic blood pressure < 100 mmHg, lactate > 2.2 mmol/l and base excess < - 2 mmol/l as surrogate markers for circulatory shock. To control for confounding, a propensity score matched analysis with conditional logistic regression for adjustment of residual confounders and a sensitivity analysis using inverse probability weighting (IPW) with and without adjustment were performed. Of the 3525 patients, 161 (4.6%) fulfilled all inclusion criteria. Of these, 132 (82%) underwent WBCT and 29 (18%) standard work-up only. In crude and matched analyses, no difference in early (24 h) mortality was observed (WBCT, 23 (17.4%) and no-WBCT, 8 (27.6%); p = 0.21). After matching and adjustment for main confounders, the odds ratio for the event of death at 24 h in the WBCT group was 0.36 (95% CI 0.07-1.73); p = 0.20. In the present study, WBCT did not increase the risk of death at 24 h among injured patients in shock. This adds to the growing data indicating that WBCT may be offered to trauma patients in circulatory shock without jeopardizing early survival.

Evaluation of IL-33R and Galectin-3 as New Biomarkers of Cardiac Damage after Polytrauma-Association with Cardiac Comorbidities and Risk Factors

Polytrauma is one of the disorders with the greatest economic impact on healthcare in society and one predictor for poor outcome is cardiac damage. Interleukin 33 receptors (IL-33R) and galectin-3 are two new potential cardiac trauma biomarkers that are the subjects of this investigation. Additionally, this study assesses pre-existing cardiac damage or risk factors as predictors of cardiac damage after polytrauma. This retrospective study includes 107 polytraumatized patients with an ISS ≥16 admitted in a Level 1 Trauma Centre. Plasma samples were taken at admission. IL-33R and galectin-3 concentrations were detected in plasma samples by ELISA. Both did not correlate with the cardiac damage measured by troponin. Next to troponin, IL-33R was increased in patients with pre-existing cardiac comorbidities. In the subgroup of patients with cardiac comorbidities, the BMI and the initial blood sugar level were significantly increased compared to patients without cardiac comorbidities. Galectin-3 and IL-33R were shown to not correlate with cardiac damage. However, our data suggests that IL-33R protein should be revised in future studies as a marker of cardiac comorbidities. Further, our data indicate that patients with cardiac comorbidities represent a separate group of polytrauma patients characterized by higher concentrations of troponin, IL-33R, BMI and initial sugar level.

Prehospital FAST reduces time to admission and operative treatment: a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial

BACKGROUND

The focused assessment with sonography in trauma (FAST) exam is an established trauma care diagnostic procedure. Ultrasound performed during prehospital care can improve early treatment and management of the patients. In this prospective randomized clinical trial, we wanted to assess whether a pre-hospital FAST (p-FAST) influences pre-hospital strategy and the time to operative treatment.

METHODS

We studied 296 trauma victims in a prehospital setting. Inclusion criteria were potential abdominal injuries identified either by clinical examination or suggested by the mechanism of injury. Physician-staffed helicopters and emergency ambulances were equipped with portable ultrasound devices. According to a scheme related to calendar weeks, a clinical exam only (CEX) or a clinical exam together with a p-FAST (CEX-p-FAST) was conducted. Outcome variables were prehospital diagnosis and strategy, the time to admission to the trauma room and to operation theater. The study was approved by the university ethical committee (REB#: 46/06).

RESULTS

CEX-p-FAST showed a high sensitivity (94.7%) and specificity (97.6%) in detection of free fluid compared to CEX-only (80.0%, 84.4%). The median time to admission was reduced significantly by 13 min and to operative treatment by 15 min after CEX-p-FAST. We observed a cross-over rate of 30.8% of p-FAST (n = 36) to CEX-p-FAST during the CEX-only weeks.

CONCLUSION

According to the experience of the principal investigators, CEX-p-FAST was superior to CEX-only. Despite the time needed for p-FAST, the relevant admission time was significantly shorter. Thus, p-FAST is recommended in addition to CEX if possible for decision-making in prehospital trauma care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

German Clinical Trials Register #DRKS00022117-Registered 10 July 2020-Retrospectively registered, https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00022117 .

Incidental Radiology Findings on Computed Tomography Studies in Emergency Department Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

An incidental finding is defined as a newly discovered mass or lesion detected on imaging performed for an unrelated reason. The identification of an incidental finding may be an opportunity for the early detection of a serious medical condition, including a malignancy. However, little is known about the prevalence of incidental findings in the emergency department (ED) setting and the strategies that can be used to mitigate the risk associated with them in the ED. This study aimed to estimate the overall prevalence of incidental findings and to summarize the currently described measures to mitigate the risks associated with incidental findings.

METHODS

On November 22, 2020, a systematic literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus was performed for studies that were published in peer-reviewed journals and reported the prevalence of incidental findings in computed tomography (CT) scans in patients in the ED. Patients who received CT scans that included the head, neck, chest, or abdomen/pelvis were included. The study characteristics, overall prevalence of incidental findings, prevalence of incidental findings by body region, and prespecified subgroups were extracted. The criteria used for risk stratification within individual studies were also extracted. Pooled estimates were calculated using a random-effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 1,385 studies were identified, and 69 studies met the inclusion criteria. The included studies represented 147,763 ED encounters or radiology reports across 16 countries, and 83% of studies were observational, cross-sectional studies. A total of 35 studies (50.7%) were in trauma patients. A large degree of heterogeneity was observed across the included studies. The overall pooled prevalence estimate for any incidental finding was 31.3% (95% confidence interval 24.4% to 39.1%). We found great variation in the methods described to mitigate the risk associated with incidental findings, including a lack of standardized risk stratification, inconsistent documentation practices, and only a small subset of studies describing prospective interventions aimed at improving the recognition and management of incidental findings from the ED.

CONCLUSION

In patients in the ED receiving CT scans, incidental findings are commonly encountered across a broad range of ED chief complaints. This review highlights the existence of great heterogeneity in the definitions used to classify incidental findings. Future studies are needed to determine a clinically feasible categorization standard or terminology for commonly encountered incidental findings in the ED setting to standardize classification and documentation.